"As to my point that numbers can be manipulated to prove anything you want them to - just ask Sir Humphrey."

Yep. I don't like these numbers, therefore they're wrong.

As to exploiting the workers, I think the point that seems to have gone sailing over many heads is that there will come a time this century, all else being equal, that there won't be any workers or just people who work for pleasure, not sustenance.

Saying superabundance won't happen because it won't be equally distributed misses the point. It will happen. What is unclear is how society will be structured to accommodate.

But every advance has advanced the lot of the lowest classes. Its all very well to talk about exploited serfs becoming exploited factory workers. But those serfs moved to the factories because it offered a better life. And the lot of the workers improved each generation. 19th century workers lived a much higher standard of living than 18the century workers. Ditto early 20th century v. 19th century and so on through the 20th century. Each generation better off than the last because of improvements in technology and productivity.

Saying it won't happen this time without explaining why this time would be different is lazy. As is JD saying that just because every claim about running out this or that resource being right doesn't mean the next claim will be wrong. Just hoping that something that always happens won't happen this time isn't a lucid argument. Its wishful thinking which ignore all the data.

Superabundance is coming and there are people alive today who will witness it. The issue is how they will cope. Based on history I think they'll be living a life that would be the envy of all 5000 generations that preceded them.

You're making quite a leap there too, mhaze.

The historical pattern you describe is broadly correct: technological progress has tended to raise average living standards over long periods.

But that does not demonstrate what you claim it demonstrates.

It shows that innovation can increase productivity and expand the supply of many goods.

It does not show that scarcity disappears in any broader economic sense, nor that a post-work society is inevitable.

Much of the improvement in workers' lives over the past two centuries did not come from technology alone. It also came from institutions: labour laws, unions, public health systems, pensions, education and social insurance. Those played a major role in determining how the gains from productivity were distributed.

And even in today's highly productive economies we still see persistent scarcity in areas like housing, care, land and access to services. Those constraints do not vanish simply because manufacturing productivity increases.

So the question critics are raising is not "whether productivity can grow". History clearly shows that it can.

The question is whether increased productive capacity automatically produces a world where work becomes optional and money irrelevant.

History does not show that inevitability. That step in your argument is assertion, not evidence.

You have shot yourself in your foot by the statement

" ... all things being equal ... "

because obviously all things aren't equal and never have been. Your whole thesis with all its mathematical calculations hasn't ever taken into account human emotions and actions. Try greed, envy, fear of missing out, a sense of superiority over others. (Take a cursory look over some posts on this forum to see the latter one in action.)

Hi John Daysh,
The standard mhaze MO is 'never admit you were wrong'
He'll argue the point until the end of time rather that EVER admit he was wrong on anything.
Be careful on that merry-go-round, you only win when you get off of it!

Indeed, AC. It's a common trait amongst those who prioritise performance over truth-seeking. To them, admitting to error risks puncturing the appearance of dominance, confidence, and rhetorical control they want the audience to see.

Superabundance...

The follow on effects of a shutdown of Persian gulf oil is going to affect everyone.
Not just the price of fuel for cars, but also the price of diesel for transport, which will affect the price of goods, including the food on everyones tables.
Roughly 33% of the world's urea and, with other nitrogen-based products, roughly 20-30% of total global fertilizer exports come from the Persian gulf.
Businesses will go bust, goods wont be available, and the follow on effects will occur one after the other like dominos.

All you idiots cheering this on, like Trump saying "no-one had the guts to do it", well, nobody else except a blackmailed pedophile president would be insane enough to go through with it.

You might soon change your mind.

All you know it all dummies clinging to your love of the pedophile genocide state, may have just cheered on our own destruction.